Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30297341›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Can rapid approaches to qualitative analysis deliver timely, valid findings to clinical leaders? A mixed methods study comparing rapid and thematic analysis.

Beck Taylor, Catherine Henshall, Sara Kenyon, Ian Litchfield, Sheila Greenfield

5 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 440 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
440citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
38.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04683744 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Facilitators and Barriers to Cancer Screening: Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementation

TypeobservationalSponsorIndiana UniversityRan2021 to 2023Enrolled82ConditionsColorectal Cancer ScreeningArmsSemi-structured interviews-Patients, Semi-structured interviews-Health system
NCT06952491 enrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Research and Engagement on Substance Use: Harnessing Awareness and Personalized Education (RESHAPE) to Improve Well-being and Self-efficacy

TypeobservationalSponsorEvidation HealthRan2025 to 2025Enrolled410ConditionsSubstance Use Disorder (SUD)
NCT07221552 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Development and Evaluation of PPAL Bedside Commode for Safe Independent Toileting Transfers

TypeinterventionalSponsorAlicia KoontzRan2026 to 2026Enrolled16ConditionsAge ProblemsArmsPPAL
NCT07710521 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Comparing Two Moral Injury Treatments: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Moral Injury and Present Centered Therapy for Moral Injury

TypeinterventionalSponsorVA Eastern Colorado Health Care SystemRan2026 to 2030Enrolled180ConditionsMoral InjuryArmsAcceptance and Commitment Therapy for Moral Injury (ACT-MI), Present Centered Therapy for Moral Injury (PCT-MI)
NCT07745205 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

HEALTHS - Holistic Evaluation of Approaches to Long-term Health and Survivorship (Focus Phytotherapy) A Single-center, Minimal-risk, Two-phase Study Including a Quantitative Observational Survey and an Interventional Mixed-methods Component With Focus Group Sessions.

TypeinterventionalSponsorJules Bordet InstituteRan2026 to 2027Enrolled500ConditionsAdult Cancer Survivors, Adult Cancer PatientsArmsInterventional mixed-methods evaluation of cancer patient's behaviour regarding CAMs (focus groups), Quantitative evaluation of cancer patient's use of CAM's
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

440 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 625 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

380 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Beck TaylorInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Catherine HenshallInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5659-3296
Sara KenyonInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Ian LitchfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1169-5392
Sheila GreenfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
University of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study compares rapid and traditional analyses of a UK health service evaluation dataset to explore differences in researcher time and consistency of outputs.

designMixed methods study, quantitatively and qualitatively comparing qualitative methods.

settingData from a home birth service evaluation study in a hospital in the English National Health Service, which took place between October and December 2014. Two research teams independently analysed focus group and interview transcript data: one team used a thematic analysis approach using the framework method, and the second used rapid analysis.

participantsHome birth midwives (6), midwifery support workers (4), commissioners (4), managers (6), and community midwives (12) and a patient representative (1) participated in the original study. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Time taken to complete analysis in person hours; analysis findings and recommendations matched, partially matched or not matched across the two teams.

resultsRapid analysis data management took less time than thematic analysis (43 hours vs 116.5 hours). Rapid analysis took 100 hours, and thematic analysis took 126.5 hours in total, with interpretation and write up taking much longer in the rapid analysis (52 hours vs 8 hours). Rapid analysis findings overlapped with 79% of thematic analysis findings, and thematic analysis overlapped with 63% of the rapid analysis findings. Rapid analysis recommendations overlapped with 55% of those from the thematic analysis, and thematic analysis overlapped with 59% of the rapid analysis recommendations.

conclusionsRapid analysis delivered a modest time saving. Excessive time to interpret data in rapid analysis in this study may be due to differences between research teams. There was overlap in outputs between approaches, more in findings than recommendations. Rapid analysis may have the potential to deliver valid, timely findings while taking less time. We recommend further comparisons using additional data sets with more similar research teams.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisData Interpretation, StatisticalFocus GroupsHome ChildbirthHumansMaternal Health ServicesMidwiferyQualitative ResearchTime Factorshealth services administration & managementmaternal medicinequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID30297341
PMCPMC6194404
OpenAlexW2896391874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.